Europe breathed a deep collective sigh of relief on Monday, as the crisis triggered by the announcement of a new comprehensive peace framework for achieving ceasefire appeared – temporarily – to have been stabilised. A senior US official spoke of "notable headway" after bilateral negotiations in Geneva. On Monday night, Russian leadership made its response: an extensive attack of aerial bombardment on Kyiv.
The Rhythm of Negotiation and Warfare
The sequence of contrasting events captured the bleak nature of the outgoing year. By day, negotiation efforts are waged: positive announcements are delivered from different nations. Considerable effort is allocated on managing particular approaches. By night, Moscow clearly shows the world that, for them, military action persists as the primary tool for achieving "peace".
After-Dark Attacks
As the offensive progressed into the early hours of Tuesday, the current condition of Ukraine's vulnerability was laid bare. Ukraine is able to track rocket firings from across the border, a capability provided through up-to-date information. From vantage locations, military aircraft that had been scrambled to engage hostile cruise missiles streaked across the sky – modern combat jets delivered to Ukraine by Western partners.
Shortly after, Kyiv's missile defense activated: multiple launches targeted at a incoming threat. This was a advanced protection mechanism at work, most likely delivered by allied countries. Every deployment jolts you unexpectedly, rattling buildings. The instant of fear quickly gives way to sober acceptance: possibly the approaching threat won't hit its mark this time, preventing destruction from catastrophe and another blackout.
Persistent Threats
Soon after, a large-caliber weapon fired at a drone somewhere nearby, part of a rapid response unit – probably imported technology. Regrettably, the projectiles didn't strike the hostile drone – it pressed on overhead toward its target.
Intermittently, this carried on until dawn. Kyiv awoke to the daybreak reports: multiple fatalities, destruction and utility failures in multiple buildings as a result of the evening attack. As typically, everyone still continued their routines – enduring hostilities. But those full day illustrated Ukraine's critical military reliance on external assistance – a dependence that regional partners are clearly incapable to substitute in the immediate future.
Unsuccessful Negotiations
The comprehensive proposal from American leadership sparked intense emotion, discussion and profound anxiety – and momentarily shifted focus from Ukraine's major integrity crisis in years. Yet, we have experienced comparable situations, after previous diplomatic encounters and international summits.
Every new initiative from American administration follows the consistent cycle: a political offensive against Ukraine, which Kyiv, with partner nations, manages to fend off. They stabilise the situation but never actually secure success. This trend will, no doubt, endure.
Strategic Calculations
It is tempting to accuse specific actors of persistently promoting Russian terms. But that does not seem to be the entire situation. Washington functions according to a premise familiar among seasoned negotiators: you cannot secure via talks what you have failed to defend militarily. The White House assumes that it is unfeasible to compel Moscow to surrender the land that it presently holds in Ukraine's south or east.
The issue is that while recognising this factual reality, US leadership does nothing to deter Moscow, through words or deeds, from assuming that the current condition will not shift further in its favour in the near future.
Opposing Positions
Therefore, Moscow is convinced that time is on his side – that Ukraine and its partners are coming close to fatigue. Their motivation to agree to terms that does not give them the greatest potential benefit is almost completely absent. There may be numerous efforts to stop fighting, but they will carry on as long as Russia's government remains supremely confident in the outcome.
On the contrary, Ukraine's government believes that Ukraine can still persist, slowly losing people and territory but averting a total frontline collapse until conditions improve in its favour.
Current Realities
Realistically, there are no actual prerequisites for a ceasefire. Now, subjective factors are entering the equation: personal goals to mediate resolution and achieve global acclaim, and Kyiv's double obstacles – on one hand, not to alienate a key ally, and on the other, to mobilize citizens around the national cause against any plan Kyiv finds unworkable, so that their attention does not switch to homefront challenges. And although their objective will now be considerably more difficult after latest incidents, it remains very improbable that this will change their overall approach.
These conflicting dynamics are influencing discussions.
Summary and Prospects
It took a only one week to terminate the suggested clauses of the most recent proposal. Assertive and inconsistent approach of the matter by Washington, opposition by Ukraine and the other European countries, along with calming attempts of negotiators, and finally, latest revelations, all served their function.
While new plans based on old ideas are forthcoming, Kyiv, London and other European capitals should reach an essential realization: Ukraine and Europe will only be able to resist negotiation assaults from Washington that are rooted in Kremlin requirements and reflect particular unwillingness to modify developments, if they stand together and improve their protective measures at a significantly accelerated rate. If they do, neither external pressure nor military threats will be able to break them. In the meantime, Ukraine's ability to repel nightly air assaults will, for the predictable period, primarily depend on continued Western support.
